Energy Saving
- Thread starter The Sheriff
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Jacob:
The highest population growth rates tend to be in areas with the most poverty and the lowest CO2 emissions. Europe and US have low, and in some cases falling birth rates.
One could conclude that population growth amongst those so poor they are unable to afford to emit greenhouse gasses is unimportant. Rightly they should enjoy the benefits we have become accustomed to - clear water, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing etc.
Europe and US need to reduce emissions. Reducing population would help.
I think some of the population will accept the sacrifices they will need to make to avert climate change. Most Is an exaggeration when they find foreign travel constrained, no airfreighted food, plastics banned bar essential uses, public services compromised to build wind turbines etc etc.
You are however right in terms of western reliance on a complex infrastructure. The power goes out for an hour and we panic. Food rots in freezers, communication ceases, businesses using just in time models rapidly cease trading etc etc. But a high standard of living (albeit green) is only possible with an infrastructure to match.
The highest population growth rates tend to be in areas with the most poverty and the lowest CO2 emissions. Europe and US have low, and in some cases falling birth rates.
One could conclude that population growth amongst those so poor they are unable to afford to emit greenhouse gasses is unimportant. Rightly they should enjoy the benefits we have become accustomed to - clear water, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing etc.
Europe and US need to reduce emissions. Reducing population would help.
I think some of the population will accept the sacrifices they will need to make to avert climate change. Most Is an exaggeration when they find foreign travel constrained, no airfreighted food, plastics banned bar essential uses, public services compromised to build wind turbines etc etc.
You are however right in terms of western reliance on a complex infrastructure. The power goes out for an hour and we panic. Food rots in freezers, communication ceases, businesses using just in time models rapidly cease trading etc etc. But a high standard of living (albeit green) is only possible with an infrastructure to match.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
I already do quite a lot of that - mob grazing, soil construction, manure etc.
I still use bulk oil based fertiliser, because it works. Not putting it on makes a colossal difference to yields, and I get paid for production not for making the place look pretty for weekend city dwellers wanting a picnic. Also the 30% methane pledge means no animal farming, yet animals are an intrinsic part of the symbiotic system. Can't be all future proofed without manure, but vegans demand animal free farming.
Isn't it ironic?
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
Those two sentences put together are quite scary. Would you put your hand up to be part of the population reduction, "for the public good"? It wouldn't suprise me if somewhere some bureaucrat is putting together the logistics for a "voluntary population reduction scheme" to save Greta Thunberg's potential grandchildren.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
There's hundreds of veggie initiatives going I doubt there would be a problem at all, it's normal in some communities.
For a start there will be all that land freed from growing animal food or pasture, could be used for "green manure". Animals aren't an essential part of the food cycle at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_agricultureIf I was a farmer I'd be looking hard at vegetarian farming and being ahead of the zeitgeist.
Come to think we haven't put any artificial or animal sourced fertiliser on out garden for years. No prob. Just household stuff and garden waste going into the compost bin.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes I agree. Those who think that lifeboat-world is overpopulated should do the noble and decent thing and jump overboard!
heimlaga
Established Member
I agree!
Disposability and throwaway consumerism fits together with sustainability like eyeglasses on an elk........ (Finnish saying)
They are just not compatible and we will need to come up with whole new ways of doing things.
One of the first things to to is to plant trees because that is probably one of the parts that has the longest lead time. We must necsessarily reforest every square metre of countryside that is not used for food production or other production. Every back yard in town should have at least one tree on it. Trees are at present the only efficient method we have for absorption and long time storage of carbon dioxide. From what I have been able to find out most of the Scottish highlands were forested until medieval times. Time to shoot some red deer and plant new forests. Dartmoor and Exmoor and the other high moors of England were heavily forested until neolithic farmers cut down the trees. The moors and hills of Ireland largely forested as late as the Viking age. The heaths of northern Germany were dense forests still in the late roman era. 40% of Iceland was forested as late as the 9th century. The forest line in the Norwegian mountains receded on average 100 height metres due to large scale brunost production from the late 18th century and onwards. The woodlands of Finland and Sweden have been too heavily logged and though there are trees everywhere the timber volume is small and the quality awful.
All those trees would over time reach an age when they have to be cut down before they rot. Tops and branches can be used for firewood. The timber can be used to build good quality wooden houses and furniture and bridges and just about anything where the carbon is tied up for centuries or at least decades more. Replacing steel and concrete which both emit lots of carbon dioxide in their production.
To keep up food production while reducing the areas of low grade pastures would require better mantainance of the soil on remaining pastures. We need to bring back organic matter and animal manure to the soil.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Actually peat is a bigger carbon store than even the Amazon rain forest. UK highlands fell to peat not de-forestation and peat is the biggest above ground world reserve of carbon. Peatlands and climate change
Peat burning and use as fertiliser has not yet been banned in Britain, which is insane.
But yes plant trees and manage water run off to slow it down and flood more of the highlands. This in the end produces peat as sphagnum moss slowly takes over. Peat bogs in UK conceal 8000 year old tree roots from the post ice-age forest, felled by nature not by man.
The biggest clearance of woodland came with the clearances and sheep farming. When timber was in high demand it was conserved. Ireland was heavily forested but cleared by the planted landowners for agricultural exploitation, then as now in other parts of the globe.
Last edited:
Sporky McGuffin
Light entertainer
Or just not have kids, which is the single greenest act open to normal people.
Misterdog
Established Member
We can't , without plastic packaging food would not last anything like as long so we would all starve to death, as the planet cannot produce enough food.
Though obesity levels would decline .
Misterdog
Established Member
I remember when North Sea oil was first discovered, it was claimed at the time, that as gas was a by product of the oil extraction, that the gas would be free
When government and experts put enough spin on ******** ----it sticks.
True, although there have been advances in biodegradable packaging and even making bags from starch etc. I don’t think it is beyond us, but the problem is cost. If the ( lets just say starch bags ) cost 3p more per unit, even though we pay bag tax ( and do they actually do anything good with my bag tax? ) the shops are reluctant to move across to them in case the public mian. They should of course be bag tax free and made available alongside the regular bags and slowly phase out the plastic. So if you can make a starch bag, you can make starch packaging
A boff interviewed on Channel 4 last night was saying that the oceans and their ecosystems play the biggest role.
Eg - The ocean and climate change :
"Coastal ecosystems like mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses play a vital role in carbon storage and sequestration. Per unit of area, they sequester carbon faster and far more efficiently than terrestrial forests. When these ecosystems are degraded, lost or converted, massive amounts of CO2 – an estimated 0.15-1.02 billion tons every year – are released into the atmosphere or ocean, accounting for up to 19% of global carbon emissions from deforestation."
It doesn't get much of a mention as far as I can tell, but the oceans are also possibly the biggest threat in the form of changing patterns of global ocean currents.
Not that we can sort that as easily as planting trees, but we could stop industrial vacuuming of life forms from the sea, pouring all kinds of waste into them and so on.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
About a third of fishing vacuumed from the sea goes to animal feed for meat, and fish food for farmed fish. Both should be off the menu.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Unfortunately North sea oil came on under a free-market govt. Profit should have been re-invested UK industry and infrastructure but instead it was frittered away. The Norwegians had more sense.I remember when North Sea oil was first discovered, it was claimed at the time, that as gas was a by product of the oil extraction, that the gas would be free
When government and experts put enough spin on ******** ----it sticks.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The "Richest 1% will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030" ‘Luxury carbon consumption’ of top 1% threatens 1.5C global heating limit
That is where de-population should start, not necessarily by doing them in but much kinder to take their riches and re-distribute them.
PS They are over populating London as we speak! Return of super-rich to central London fuels house price surge
Last edited:
heimlaga
Established Member
Yep. The sea plays a vital role. The reason why I talked about planting trees is that they have the longest lead time and also make an easy starting point.
Just as Chris and Jacob say we must do things about the sea too as well as lakes and bogs and other watery places.
I rekon that all fish that is good enough for humans to eat should be reserved for humans. You have to fish many tons of wild fish to farm a ton of salmon or breed a ton of pork. If we eat the wild fish instead we can get more calories into the human body per ton of fish caugt. Of cause there are always less edible parts on every fish such as the head and intestines that is best ground up for animal fodder but then it should be reserved for animals on land. In a fish farm a much greater percentage of the fodder just floats away than in a poultry barn.
If we use the fish more efficiently we can catch less of it and that in turn does mean that the ecosystem can be rebuilt.
We must change the system with fishing quotas from the bottom up. At the moment a huge part of the fish caught is thrown overboard dead because it cannot be landed without exceeding the quota for that species or because it is considered a by catch. Trawls are so large and are towed so fast that whatever it's tightness is in theory even smaller fish are caught but as there are minimum sizes for many species the smaller fish are thrown overboard dead.
I rekon we should follow the example of the Faroes. Their fishing quotas are given in the form of "havdagar" that is "sea days". The number of days a year each boat is allowed to spend at sea fishing. Every fish caught during those days must be brought ashore whatever size or species it is. Nothing is allowed to go to waste. Smaller boats with simpler gear get a larger number of havdagar while large trawlers get a smaller number. This favours more dicerning smaller scale fishing methods closer to home where such methods are practicable.
We must stop all pollution that isn't totally unavoidable. Already now most baltic herring goes to animal fodder because it is too high in fire retardants to be healthy to eat as it is. We have poisoned our own fish soup for the sake of cheap electronics. A delicate fish with very good nutritious values goes to waste.
Then comes the question of restoring salt marches, reed beds, peat bogs and so in......... However many coastal dikes are there to keep farmland dry and we cannot cut down the area of farmland too much.
Edited bad spelling
Just as Chris and Jacob say we must do things about the sea too as well as lakes and bogs and other watery places.
I rekon that all fish that is good enough for humans to eat should be reserved for humans. You have to fish many tons of wild fish to farm a ton of salmon or breed a ton of pork. If we eat the wild fish instead we can get more calories into the human body per ton of fish caugt. Of cause there are always less edible parts on every fish such as the head and intestines that is best ground up for animal fodder but then it should be reserved for animals on land. In a fish farm a much greater percentage of the fodder just floats away than in a poultry barn.
If we use the fish more efficiently we can catch less of it and that in turn does mean that the ecosystem can be rebuilt.
We must change the system with fishing quotas from the bottom up. At the moment a huge part of the fish caught is thrown overboard dead because it cannot be landed without exceeding the quota for that species or because it is considered a by catch. Trawls are so large and are towed so fast that whatever it's tightness is in theory even smaller fish are caught but as there are minimum sizes for many species the smaller fish are thrown overboard dead.
I rekon we should follow the example of the Faroes. Their fishing quotas are given in the form of "havdagar" that is "sea days". The number of days a year each boat is allowed to spend at sea fishing. Every fish caught during those days must be brought ashore whatever size or species it is. Nothing is allowed to go to waste. Smaller boats with simpler gear get a larger number of havdagar while large trawlers get a smaller number. This favours more dicerning smaller scale fishing methods closer to home where such methods are practicable.
We must stop all pollution that isn't totally unavoidable. Already now most baltic herring goes to animal fodder because it is too high in fire retardants to be healthy to eat as it is. We have poisoned our own fish soup for the sake of cheap electronics. A delicate fish with very good nutritious values goes to waste.
Then comes the question of restoring salt marches, reed beds, peat bogs and so in......... However many coastal dikes are there to keep farmland dry and we cannot cut down the area of farmland too much.
Edited bad spelling
Last edited:
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
Most of that land isn't good quality, which is why it is used for animal pasture. Good luck growing tomatoes on moorland farms etc.
They may not be essential to you, but they are an integral, essential part of the biosphere. How about we reforest the UK, bring back the Wild Wood with its bears and wolves, reduce the human population to a few hundred thousand and declare the planet saved?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Is that what you would do? Sounds like you could do with some professional advice!
Yes you have put your finger on it - that is the way we are going under unconstrained climate change, whether we like it or not.
What is under discussion is how to avert this. You obviously haven't been listening to the news. Missed the point 100%!
heimlaga
Established Member
Animals have their place in the future supply system though significantly less dominant than now. There are plenty of areas where grass can be grown for animal fodder while the soil is too poor or the climate to harch or the conditions otherwise unsuitable to allow for any greater production of oat or barley to feed people.
For instance most of the part of Sweden that is north of Sundsvall and most of the part of Finland that is north of Karleby. Shetland, parts of Orkney and parts of the Scottish highlands. Some areas on the German and Dutch coasts especially the Friesian Halligen islands. Some flood plains and flood prone coastal areas.
There must also be some animals kept in all farming districts because with less artificial fertilizers and less pesticides there will be a need for animal dung and also grass must be part of a sound crop rotation. Clover used as green fertilizer looses little by taking a detour through a cow before the fertlizer is ploughed down.
The best thing we can do with that grass is to keep cattle and sheep. To feed them with grass and not with corn or soy which in turn will make them yeild significantly less than the cattle and sheep of today. A cow subsisting on grass and twigs and reeds produces at best half as much milk as a cow eating modern fodder. Though if choosing suitable low yeilding breeds such cows can be healthy and well fed. A lamb takes more time to grow to butcherable size. There will be animals just a bit fewer and yeilding significantly less.
THOUGH we need to really make use of those animal from nose the cloof. Leather for shoes. Wool for clothes. Milk. A bit of beef and mutton though in smaller rations than the insane meatindulgence of our time.
For instance most of the part of Sweden that is north of Sundsvall and most of the part of Finland that is north of Karleby. Shetland, parts of Orkney and parts of the Scottish highlands. Some areas on the German and Dutch coasts especially the Friesian Halligen islands. Some flood plains and flood prone coastal areas.
There must also be some animals kept in all farming districts because with less artificial fertilizers and less pesticides there will be a need for animal dung and also grass must be part of a sound crop rotation. Clover used as green fertilizer looses little by taking a detour through a cow before the fertlizer is ploughed down.
The best thing we can do with that grass is to keep cattle and sheep. To feed them with grass and not with corn or soy which in turn will make them yeild significantly less than the cattle and sheep of today. A cow subsisting on grass and twigs and reeds produces at best half as much milk as a cow eating modern fodder. Though if choosing suitable low yeilding breeds such cows can be healthy and well fed. A lamb takes more time to grow to butcherable size. There will be animals just a bit fewer and yeilding significantly less.
THOUGH we need to really make use of those animal from nose the cloof. Leather for shoes. Wool for clothes. Milk. A bit of beef and mutton though in smaller rations than the insane meatindulgence of our time.
